TOPIC:

"TheBeerNut":1wnvx2d4 wrote: I've never found that. And if I were getting a large brewery like Belhaven to make a beer for my brand, consistency would be right there at the top of the spec.[/quote:1wnvx2d4]

I will allow that due to the fact it is in clear bottles I can't vouch for how well it was kept before I bought it and two bottles is probably not enough to judge consistency. But the difference between the two was astonishing.
Surely the oak aging could add a variable even though it is blended?

"Gues7":2i23sfh6 wrote: Cant say I was a fan... Sierra Nevada's Celebration for that matter...[/quote:2i23sfh6]

Hang on a tick - you didn't care for Celebration or you think it's somehow "the worst"?

It may not be to everyone's taste (though personally I'd drink it over most other beverages, never mind beers) but I don't think anyone would claim it's poorly made or a "bad" beer.

Not splitting hairs, just sticking to the spirit of the thread.

"Gues7":3pj6q1oe wrote: Dont forget the bit about "IYHO" (In your humble opinion). Personally, I didn't care for it at all, in fact, I gave away my pint to someone else after I had sampled it....[/quote:3pj6q1oe]

Right, but that doesn't mean it's poor, which is kinda what I thought this thread had been about - consistency, flavor profiles, character, etc.

Or to take it another way, I think Saranac generally makes mediocre beers - thin with no complexity. But sometimes that's what I want, and I drink quite a bit of them when I'm home in NY.
I don't have to like good beers, and I don't have to hate bad beers either, but I still acknowledge the difference.

(Wouldn't dream of paying e3 a bottle for Saranac here, but that's for another thread...)